Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

Which Anti-Ship Missile Should be Selected for the Type 26?

Lockheed Martin LRASM
164
52%
Kongsberg NSM
78
25%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
44
14%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
21
7%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 315

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by inch »

Shame we can't can't seem to get the same load out of cells in the RN,as usual MOD/RN knows best and every other navy's wrong ,AHH well

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

inch wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 09:25 Shame we can't can't seem to get the same load out of cells in the RN,as usual MOD/RN knows best and every other navy's wrong ,AHH well
Is it every other Navy? The large proportion of Escorts have no more than 48 cells.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

Type 26 will enter service with 72 vertical launch tubes

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by wargame_insomniac »

tomuk wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 17:49
inch wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 09:25 Shame we can't can't seem to get the same load out of cells in the RN,as usual MOD/RN knows best and every other navy's wrong ,AHH well
Is it every other Navy? The large proportion of Escorts have no more than 48 cells.
I would nt mind seeing backup for your assertion.

I suspect that your thinking might be regarding other European Navies which, with the probable exception of the French, you would not regard as first class navies.

Now when you look at the USN, PLAN, JMSDF, (which I would argue are the 3 strongest navies worldwide), not to mention other navies such as South Korean, they all have 90-100+ VLS in their AAW destroyers

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 18:05
tomuk wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 17:49
inch wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 09:25 Shame we can't can't seem to get the same load out of cells in the RN,as usual MOD/RN knows best and every other navy's wrong ,AHH well
Is it every other Navy? The large proportion of Escorts have no more than 48 cells.
I would nt mind seeing backup for your assertion.

I suspect that your thinking might be regarding other European Navies which, with the probable exception of the French, you would not regard as first class navies.

Now when you look at the USN, PLAN, JMSDF, (which I would argue are the 3 strongest navies worldwide), not to mention other navies such as South Korean, they all have 90-100+ VLS in their AAW destroyers
As I said that is four of the worlds many navies. Also three of those operate Arleigh Burkes or derivatives thereof where the original design required a large number of cells due to the need to fire salvos due to the limitations of the missile systems.

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 18:40
As I said that is four of the worlds many navies. Also three of those operate Arleigh Burkes or derivatives thereof where the original design required a large number of cells due to the need to fire salvos due to the limitations of the missile systems.
AEGIS is very capable. More likely due to most of USN ships having a load out for land attack and ASW in addition to anti air, ie cruise missiles and ASROC

One area where the RN does seem a little out of alignment with some other western navies is in its use of single role optimized surface combatants. Even the RAN's Air Warfare Destroyers are just as capable in ASW and ASuW, and the the issues involved in turning the BAE GCS (RN variant being the Type 26) into to a full spectrum warship have already been discussed.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

SouthernOne wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 19:27
tomuk wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 18:40
As I said that is four of the worlds many navies. Also three of those operate Arleigh Burkes or derivatives thereof where the original design required a large number of cells due to the need to fire salvos due to the limitations of the missile systems.
AEGIS is very capable. More likely due to most of USN ships having a load out for land attack and ASW in addition to anti air, ie cruise missiles and ASROC
The early Standard Missiles fitted to the Burkes and Ticos didn't have active radar seekers and had to be guided by the launching vessel, to increase the probability of hitting the target it was necessary to launch missiles in pairs. The developments that led to Aster fitted to T45 and the Horizon ships were predicated on using active seeking missiles (and hit to kill) to reduce the need to launch pairs of missiles.
One area where the RN does seem a little out of alignment with some other western navies is in its use of single role optimized surface combatants. Even the RAN's Air Warfare Destroyers are just as capable in ASW and ASuW, and the the issues involved in turning the BAE GCS (RN variant being the Type 26) into to a full spectrum warship have already been discussed.
The Hobarts and their Spanish and Norwegian cousins although capable of ASW aren't optimised like a T23\T26 on T45 there were plans and space to fit a better sonar and torpedoes but lack of budget due to ballooning costs elsewhere meant neither were fitted.

In terms of the Hunter class I personally think the issues are more about the customer requirement and the connected radar rather than the ship.
On the customer side I believe Aus do need a optimised ASW frigate with an adequate AAW fit, they also need more AAW destroyers. Should those requirements be combined, and is it even possible to combine them, into one vessel? I think the answer is no.

On the radar side I think CEFAR lacks a certain subtlety and uses a lot of brute force to get results plus it appears to be specced for full on Area\Theatre AAW and even BMD this is more capability than needed, what is wrong with a SPY7 equivalent as sized for Canada or Spain.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Zeno »

Define the subtlety lack in Ceafar , this was believed tailored for R.A.N needs , you assert that the Hunter class may not be as capable in ASW operations as a type 26 can you provide details on this please?

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

Zeno wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 04:48 Define the subtlety lack in Ceafar , this was believed tailored for R.A.N needs , you assert that the Hunter class may not be as capable in ASW operations as a type 26 can you provide details on this please?
Re ASW, the embarked MH-60R is an impressive helo, while the ship launched MU90s are still pretty much state of the art.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by NickC »

It is to be remembered that though Hunter based on the T26 it is substantially larger ship maybe by anything from 20 to 45%? BAE quote T26 displacement as 6,900t, whereas have seen mention Hunter as ~ 10,000t. whether an apples to apples comparison uncertain as don't know if type of displacements figures quoted by BAE and for Hunter are one and the same or not, light, standard or full, which will make big difference, what is known the Hunter's beam was increased over and above that of the T26 to give the necessary ship stability.

The Hunter's larger displacement no doubt driven in part by its heavy and high performance Ceafar radar system fitted on its hexagon shaped deckhouse, not sure how many AESA S-band and X-band GaN planar arrays fitted, but think due to their large area will give it an order magnitude more capability than Artisan fitted to the T26 (US Navy stated that radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Zeno »

tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 03:07
SouthernOne wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 19:27
tomuk wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 18:40
As I said that is four of the worlds many navies. Also three of those operate Arleigh Burkes or derivatives thereof where the original design required a large number of cells due to the need to fire salvos due to the limitations of the missile systems.
AEGIS is very capable. More likely due to most of USN ships having a load out for land attack and ASW in addition to anti air, ie cruise missiles and ASROC
The early Standard Missiles fitted to the Burkes and Ticos didn't have active radar seekers and had to be guided by the launching vessel, to increase the probability of hitting the target it was necessary to launch missiles in pairs. The developments that led to Aster fitted to T45 and the Horizon ships were predicated on using active seeking missiles (and hit to kill) to reduce the need to launch pairs of missiles.
One area where the RN does seem a little out of alignment with some other western navies is in its use of single role optimized surface combatants. Even the RAN's Air Warfare Destroyers are just as capable in ASW and ASuW, and the the issues involved in turning the BAE GCS (RN variant being the Type 26) into to a full spectrum warship have already been discussed.
The Hobarts and their Spanish and Norwegian cousins although capable of ASW aren't optimised like a T23\T26 on T45 there were plans and space to fit a better sonar and torpedoes but lack of budget due to ballooning costs elsewhere meant neither were fitted.

In terms of the Hunter class I personally think the issues are more about the customer requirement and the connected radar rather than the ship.
On the customer side I believe Aus do need a optimised ASW frigate with an adequate AAW fit, they also need more AAW destroyers. Should those requirements be combined, and is it even possible to combine them, into one vessel? I think the answer is no.

On the radar side I think CEFAR lacks a certain subtlety and uses a lot of brute force to get results plus it appears to be specced for full on Area\Theatre AAW and even BMD this is more capability than needed, what is wrong with a SPY7 equivalent as sized for Canada or Spain.
With regards to SPY 7 This article suggests its not so clear cut between it and SPY 6
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 1167e31da0

Fr0sty125
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 09 Feb 2023, 17:18
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Fr0sty125 »

News of a 100VLS option is. Interesting. 48 CAMM seems the right load out for the Type 26. However BAE are pedalling this platform as an option to replace the 45s and if that’s the case it’s going to need space for circa 24-48 CAMM and 48-72 strike length.

pko100
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 07 Feb 2020, 10:21
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by pko100 »

Nick

to quote you -
The Hunter's larger displacement no doubt driven in part by its heavy and high performance Ceafar radar system fitted on its hexagon shaped deckhouse, not sure how many AESA S-band and X-band GaN planar arrays fitted, but think due to their large area will give it an order magnitude more capability than Artisan fitted to the T26 (US Navy stated that radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture).

I know Artisan regularly seems to get a bashing on many forums but it would appear to meet the Navy's requirement and has certain performance enhancements over SAMPSON, partially based on UK only and UK/USA technology development programmes such as ARTIST. It would appear to have sophisticated ECCM characteristics, detect small rcs targets and meet the performance required to cue and provide mid course updates to multiple CAMMs.

In what way will Ceafar provide an order of magnitude more capability than Artisan ? Is it Instrumented range, update rate ?
These users liked the author pko100 for the post:
Ron5

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Zeno wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 04:48 Define the subtlety lack in Ceafar , this was believed tailored for R.A.N needs , you assert that the Hunter class may not be as capable in ASW operations as a type 26 can you provide details on this please?
No I think I said the Hobarts are less capable than T26 at ASW. Australia needs a proper ASW frigate (plus more attack subs) to counter PLAN subs hence the Hunter variant of T26. What Australia doesn't need is a Hunter class hobbled by a massive radar and missile fit that would be better suited to a AAW destroyer.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
R686Ron5

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 21:36
Zeno wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 04:48 Define the subtlety lack in Ceafar , this was believed tailored for R.A.N needs , you assert that the Hunter class may not be as capable in ASW operations as a type 26 can you provide details on this please?
No I think I said the Hobarts are less capable than T26 at ASW. Australia needs a proper ASW frigate (plus more attack subs) to counter PLAN subs hence the Hunter variant of T26. What Australia doesn't need is a Hunter class hobbled by a massive radar and missile fit that would be better suited to a AAW destroyer.
Single role ships just don't make a lot of sense for a number of navies, though, particularly when you're operating across the distances of the Indo Pacific. Hence the Hunter is in reality an AEGIS "AAW destroyer" that will be loaded with ESSM and SM-2 for area air defence, along with its ASW role.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

pko100 wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 20:50 Nick

to quote you -
The Hunter's larger displacement no doubt driven in part by its heavy and high performance Ceafar radar system fitted on its hexagon shaped deckhouse, not sure how many AESA S-band and X-band GaN planar arrays fitted, but think due to their large area will give it an order magnitude more capability than Artisan fitted to the T26 (US Navy stated that radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture).

I know Artisan regularly seems to get a bashing on many forums but it would appear to meet the Navy's requirement and has certain performance enhancements over SAMPSON, partially based on UK only and UK/USA technology development programmes such as ARTIST. It would appear to have sophisticated ECCM characteristics, detect small rcs targets and meet the performance required to cue and provide mid course updates to multiple CAMMs.

In what way will Ceafar provide an order of magnitude more capability than Artisan ? Is it Instrumented range, update rate ?
Artisan is in no way a better performer than Sampson they are just a different class of radar. Artisan uses a lot of Sampson tech repackaged into a smaller cheaper less capable system more suited to frigate than a AAW destroyer.

CEAFAR as shown in the Hunter models with its multiple bands of six sided fixed arrays on should easily give a better performance than Artisan due to the inherent increase in bands\T/R modules etc it is just a bigger radar.

However there are the physical disadvantages supplying the required , power, cooling, weight. The classic comparison is the large SPY1 arrays low down on deckhouse on the Arleigh Burkes with the SAMPSON arrays high up on their mast. The height difference gives Sampson an advantage regards sea skimming missiles and surface targets.

There are also significant differences in performance due to the radar backend processing. The quality of the processing can make up for limitations in the radar size and technology or conversely waste the performance inherent in larger better tech ie GaN radar.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

SouthernOne wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 22:07
tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 21:36
Zeno wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 04:48 Define the subtlety lack in Ceafar , this was believed tailored for R.A.N needs , you assert that the Hunter class may not be as capable in ASW operations as a type 26 can you provide details on this please?
No I think I said the Hobarts are less capable than T26 at ASW. Australia needs a proper ASW frigate (plus more attack subs) to counter PLAN subs hence the Hunter variant of T26. What Australia doesn't need is a Hunter class hobbled by a massive radar and missile fit that would be better suited to a AAW destroyer.
Single role ships just don't make a lot of sense for a number of navies, though, particularly when you're operating across the distances of the Indo Pacific. Hence the Hunter is in reality an AEGIS "AAW destroyer" that will be loaded with ESSM and SM-2 for area air defence, along with its ASW role.
But that isn't what T26 is and it isn't what you are buying T26 is a league ahead in the ASW role compared to a AAW Destroyer like the Hobarts. If you wanted more AAW destroyers you should just buy some.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
R686Ron5

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by R686 »

SouthernOne wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 22:07
tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 21:36
Zeno wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 04:48 Define the subtlety lack in Ceafar , this was believed tailored for R.A.N needs , you assert that the Hunter class may not be as capable in ASW operations as a type 26 can you provide details on this please?
No I think I said the Hobarts are less capable than T26 at ASW. Australia needs a proper ASW frigate (plus more attack subs) to counter PLAN subs hence the Hunter variant of T26. What Australia doesn't need is a Hunter class hobbled by a massive radar and missile fit that would be better suited to a AAW destroyer.
Single role ships just don't make a lot of sense for a number of navies, though, particularly when you're operating across the distances of the Indo Pacific. Hence the Hunter is in reality an AEGIS "AAW destroyer" that will be loaded with ESSM and SM-2 for area air defence, along with its ASW role.
Hunters are not single role ships but are to be optimized for ASW role. this is where CEC comes into it the AWD can que the firing of a ASW ship if it's in a better position to do so. but in saying that if weight consideration gives it the means of having 48 cells I would be happy with that

Just like the Hobarts have a more limited sub surface capability but its primary role is AWD

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

R686 wrote: 18 Feb 2023, 00:03
SouthernOne wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 22:07
tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 21:36
Zeno wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 04:48 Define the subtlety lack in Ceafar , this was believed tailored for R.A.N needs , you assert that the Hunter class may not be as capable in ASW operations as a type 26 can you provide details on this please?
No I think I said the Hobarts are less capable than T26 at ASW. Australia needs a proper ASW frigate (plus more attack subs) to counter PLAN subs hence the Hunter variant of T26. What Australia doesn't need is a Hunter class hobbled by a massive radar and missile fit that would be better suited to a AAW destroyer.
Single role ships just don't make a lot of sense for a number of navies, though, particularly when you're operating across the distances of the Indo Pacific. Hence the Hunter is in reality an AEGIS "AAW destroyer" that will be loaded with ESSM and SM-2 for area air defence, along with its ASW role.
Hunters are not single role ships but are to be optimized for ASW role. this is where CEC comes into it the AWD can que the firing of a ASW ship if it's in a better position to do so. but in saying that if weight consideration gives it the means of having 48 cells I would be happy with that

Just like the Hobarts have a more limited sub surface capability but its primary role is AWD
The current specs for each class are as follows:
T26 48x CAMM mushrooms plus 24x Mk41 VLS
Hunter 32x Mk41 VLS plus 8x ASuW Box Launchers (NSM)
CSC 24x Mk41 VLS plus 6xEXLS for CAMM (24 missiles) plus 8x ASuW Box Launchers (NSM)
The weight issues with Hunter are the radar.

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

R686 wrote: 18 Feb 2023, 00:03
SouthernOne wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 22:07
tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 21:36
Zeno wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 04:48 Define the subtlety lack in Ceafar , this was believed tailored for R.A.N needs , you assert that the Hunter class may not be as capable in ASW operations as a type 26 can you provide details on this please?
No I think I said the Hobarts are less capable than T26 at ASW. Australia needs a proper ASW frigate (plus more attack subs) to counter PLAN subs hence the Hunter variant of T26. What Australia doesn't need is a Hunter class hobbled by a massive radar and missile fit that would be better suited to a AAW destroyer.
Single role ships just don't make a lot of sense for a number of navies, though, particularly when you're operating across the distances of the Indo Pacific. Hence the Hunter is in reality an AEGIS "AAW destroyer" that will be loaded with ESSM and SM-2 for area air defence, along with its ASW role.
Hunters are not single role ships but are to be optimized for ASW role. this is where CEC comes into it the AWD can que the firing of a ASW ship if it's in a better position to do so. but in saying that if weight consideration gives it the means of having 48 cells I would be happy with that

Just like the Hobarts have a more limited sub surface capability but its primary role is AWD
There definitely are benefits to using AEGIS (with CEC) on all the RAN's major surface combatants. With regard to Mk 41 cells, it will be interesting to see how many are included once the design is finalised. Display models indicate only 32, but I'll wait for the official announcements. I suspect the number of launchers to be fitted was one of contributors to the weight issue worked though recently.

But 32 would still equate to 16 SM-2 and 64 ESSM, or 24 SM-2 and 32 ESSM, or 128 ESSM.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by NickC »

Zeno wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 13:34
On the radar side I think CEFAR lacks a certain subtlety and uses a lot of brute force to get results plus it appears to be specced for full on Area\Theatre AAW and even BMD this is more capability than needed, what is wrong with a SPY7 equivalent as sized for Canada or Spain.
With regards to SPY 7 This article suggests its not so clear cut between it and SPY 6
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 1167e31da0
[/quote]

Lockheed claim the SPY-7 has 3.3 times the detection range of the existing SPY-1 radars and better detection range than any competitor radar (by implication Raytheon SPY-6), with SPY-7 Lockheed use dual-polarization, transmitting in both horizontal and vertical planes to create 2D images resulting in much better discrimination.

When the Japanese delegation visited US to pick the radar for the Aegis Ashore they visited Lockheed and Raytheon and said were much more impressed by the demo of the Lockheed radar. When Japanese cancelled Aegis Ashore and moved offshore to their planned two 20,000t Aegis ships, Lockheed convinced them to stay with SPY-7 and not change to the incumbent SPY-6 as used in the latest USN Burke Flight IIIs.

To be noted the MDA specified the long range X-band Raytheon AN/TPY-2 radar instead of a S-band, as used in both SPY-6 & 7, for the US Army THAAD BMD missile. X-band with it three times higher frequency was required by MDA to give the necessary discrimination, but X-band is an expensive option as the latest AN/TPY-2 radar costs a quarter $billion each for its single 100 sq ft array with 25,000+ X-band T/R GaN modules, for comparison the SPY-6 would only require 1,200 S-band T/R GaN modules to populate a 100 sq ft array. It would appear the Lockheed SPY-7 with its dual-polarization giving nearly the same discrimination as X-band and at considerably lower cost of an S-band radar and it was revealed last March by US State Dept that SPY-7 was the MoD option for UK BMD radar.

Lockheed not the only radar company to move to dual-polarization eg Thales taking similar route with their AESA dual axis multi-beam tech/simultaneous multi-beams in azimuth and elevation.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

As a question could a 227mm GMLRS ER rocket be quad packed into a Mk-41 cell if so with its 150KM range type 26 could carry 64 in 16 cells or 96 in 24 cells I only ask as ESSM is 254mm

Also could PrSM fit in a Mk-41 cell as this could give T-26 24 x 500km ballistic missiles

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by NickC »

The PrSM Spiral 1 under development by US Army with a seeker designed to target moving targets, ships etc would easily fit in T26 Mk41 VLS cells and expect the seeker will give larger search basket area coming in vertically from great height, though as always obtaining accurate the targeting info at that range the problem.

Cost of standard PrSM ~ $1.8 million, expect Spiral 1 would be more expensive with its seeker. As USN has no plans to fit PrSM in Mk41 VLS cells would require development/qualification funding if ever procured for the T26 which think unlikely as RN seems set on the FC/ASW which looks more expensive?

Understand one of the major development hurdles was making the PrSM NG rocket motor capable of short ranges as well as its long max range of 500km, which with later a later spiral development hoping to further extend range, talk of 700 to 1,000 km.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Phil Sayers »

NickC wrote: 18 Feb 2023, 13:33
Cost of standard PrSM ~ $1.8 million, expect Spiral 1 would be more expensive with its seeker. As USN has no plans to fit PrSM in Mk41 VLS cells would require development/qualification funding if ever procured for the T26 which think unlikely as RN seems set on the FC/ASW which looks more expensive?
I would not be overly surprised if the USN did look at integrating PrSM in Mk41. Similar unit cost to TLAM but probably a better option to use on many different types of target.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by NickC »

Phil Sayers wrote: 18 Feb 2023, 14:04
NickC wrote: 18 Feb 2023, 13:33
Cost of standard PrSM ~ $1.8 million, expect Spiral 1 would be more expensive with its seeker. As USN has no plans to fit PrSM in Mk41 VLS cells would require development/qualification funding if ever procured for the T26 which think unlikely as RN seems set on the FC/ASW which looks more expensive?
I would not be overly surprised if the USN did look at integrating PrSM in Mk41. Similar unit cost to TLAM but probably a better option to use on many different types of target.
Would be very surprised if the USN looked at integrating the PrSM, my thinking was that if the USN integrated PrSM in the Mk41 Congress might wake up and smell the coffee and ask why funding $billions on the Navy hypersonic boost-glide CPS missiles, $2.5 billion alone in R&D for FY2022 & 2023, think latest procurement cost estimated at $59 million for each CPS missile when the USN have the option of the PrSM ballistic missile with maneuverable warhead at approx. $2 million each, though recognise CPS has longer range of 2,500km, but would expect if PrSM variant expanded to fit max dimensions of Mk41 VLS cell its range might not be much different, still at fraction of the cost of the CPS, plus the need to fund the new large and expensive VLS cells required for the launching CPS from its surface fleet.

Post Reply